Quote:
Originally Posted by Craven Morehead
Being that I am and have had to make the decision twice for my two sons, I've never looked at it as mutilation. Maybe that is rationalization at work. The intent was never to mutilate the human body. Since I am not Jewish, the intent was not driven by religious requirements. But its sort of a social norm, at least where I came from. While it technically may be mutilation, since the intent was not, I give it a pass. Again I say this may be rationalization.
|
May?
Go on, be honest.
GENUINEGIRLY:
Circumcision has absolutely, 110%, NOTHING to do with sexual function. In fact, one of its main pro-arguments of yesteryear was its function of restricting the ease of masturbation... which is pretty true.
__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--
Last edited by tisonlyi; 06-01-2009 at 08:44 AM..
|